Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only flag idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by giving the 24-hour idempotency window and the same-inputs-or-key trigger, plus the distinct liveUrl/pendingUrl return branches and the $29/year price. This is exactly the kind of context beyond the annotation set that agents need.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, every sentence conveying distinct operational information (return artifacts, payment branch, idempotency). Slightly dense - a single sentence packs three separate outcomes - but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (liveUrl, pendingUrl) and the conditional payment path. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., invalid resourceType, checkout expiry) or how the human payment completes, leaving a small gap for a mutation tool with external side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to idempotencyKey (its retry semantics and default hashing) and to resourceType (free vs paid consequences) that the schema does not convey. Coverage of the boolean compliance flags and companySlug is left to the schema, which is reasonable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate and host a privacy policy') and names the destination artifact ('stable HTTPS URL'). This clearly separates it from siblings check_privacy_policy_url (verification) and list_resource_types (enumeration).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the two operating paths - free/API-key holders get liveUrl immediately, others get a Stripe Checkout link requiring human payment - and describes repeat-call behavior. It gives clear context but does not explicitly say when to pick this over a sibling or what prerequisites exist for the Agent API key path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.